LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate from the extra panel (20% over and above the vacancies) has a right to appointment if vacancies remain unfilled.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South East Central Railway & Ors.
Judgment Date: 27 November 2018
Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1017
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Deepak Gupta, J. (Majority Opinion), Hemant Gupta, J. (Dissenting Opinion)
Can a railway authority ignore candidates on a replacement panel, even when vacancies exist? The Supreme Court, in a split decision, addressed this issue, examining the rights of candidates on a 20% extra panel for railway jobs. The core issue revolves around whether the South East Central Railway (SECR) was justified in not appointing candidates from the extra panel, despite unfilled vacancies. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, held that the SECR should have provided a valid reason for not filling the vacancies from the extra panel. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented, stating that the railway had the discretion not to fill the vacancies.
Case Background
On 15 December 2010, the South East Central Railway (SECR) issued an advertisement to fill 5798 posts in various divisions and workshops. The SECR followed existing instructions to prepare a select list with 20% extra candidates to avoid shortfalls. Consequently, the results of 6995 candidates were declared. The appellants were among the 20% extra candidates. Despite 624 general category posts remaining unfilled, the SECR did not appoint candidates from this extra list. The appellants then filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking directions to fill the vacancies from the 20% list.
The CAT rejected the application, and the appellants’ writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court held that the appellants had no right to appointment, even if other zones had made appointments from the replacement panel.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15 December 2010 | South East Central Railway (SECR) issued an advertisement for 5798 posts. |
| 2010 | SECR prepared a select list with 20% extra candidates |
| 11 March 2013 | Appointments were made against the advertised posts. |
| 9 July 2013 | Appointments were made against the advertised posts. |
| March 2014 | Appointments were made against the advertised posts. |
| 2014 | Appellants filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). |
| 13 February 2015 | The CAT dismissed the Original Applications. |
| 05 August 2015 | Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. |
| 27 November 2018 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejected the appellants’ applications, stating that the right of candidates in the 20% extra list only arises after a demand for a replacement panel is made to the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC). The CAT noted that since no such demand was made, the appellants had no right to be considered for appointment.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the CAT’s decision, stating that the appellants had no vested legal right to appointment. The High Court also held that the procedure prescribed in the Railway Board’s letter of 02 July 2008 for preparing a replacement panel was not initiated by the respondents.
Legal Framework
The court examined the instructions issued by the Railway Board on 02 July 2008, which stated:
“3. The issue has been examined and it has now been decided by the Board that the number of candidates called for document verification shall be 20% over and above the number of vacancies.”
The instructions also included the following provisos:
- “(i) It has to be brought out clearly in the Call Letter to the candidate that the purpose of calling 20% candidates over and above the number of vacancies at the time of document verification is primarily to avoid shortfall in the panel and that merely calling a candidate for document verification does not, in any way, entitle him/her to an appointment in the railways.”
- “(ii) Even where the number of candidates available after document verification exceeds the number of vacancies, the panel finalized by RRC (Railway Recruitment Cell) shall be equal to the number of vacancies only. In case, the Railway administration after giving stipulated joining time to the selected candidates, certifies that certain number of candidates have not turned up within the specific period, another panel equal to the number of candidates finally not turning up for taking appointment will be supplied by RRC. Before calling for replacement in-lieu of the candidates finally not turning up for taking appointment CPO shall personally satisfy himself that the procedure for cancellation of the offer of appointment to the originally empanelled candidates has been strictly followed. Under no circumstances, the number of candidates covered in the original as well as replacement panels shall exceed the number of vacancies indented by the railway; and”
- “(iii) Replacement panels shall include only such number of reserved / un-reserved candidates as have not turned up as per original panel.”
The court also noted that this procedure of maintaining replacement panels was discontinued after 10 January 2014.
The Supreme Court also considered Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the State must act in a non-arbitrary manner.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the SECR should have filled the 624 vacant posts from the 20% extra panel, as per the instructions of 02 July 2008.
- They contended that the SECR’s decision not to appoint them was arbitrary, especially since other railway zones had appointed candidates from replacement panels.
- They relied on the judgment in R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India (1995) Suppl.2 SCC 230, arguing that while they do not have a vested right to appointment, the employer cannot ignore the select panel without a justifiable reason.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The SECR argued that the 20% extra candidates were called only to avoid shortfalls in the panel and that merely calling them for document verification did not guarantee appointment.
- They submitted that the purpose of calling 20% extra candidates was to fill vacancies if candidates higher in merit did not turn up for document verification or were declared medically unfit.
- The SECR stated that after 10 January 2014, the system of maintaining replacement panels was discontinued.
- The SECR contended that the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) had to ensure that the procedure for cancellation of appointment of the originally empanelled candidates was strictly followed before calling for replacement candidates, which was not done.
- They also argued that subsequent selection processes in 2012 and 2013 filled the vacancies, and the appellants’ rights cannot be enforced over those selected in later processes.
- The respondents further argued that the validity of the panel was only for two years, which had expired.
- They also contended that the appellants had lower marks than the cut-offs prescribed in the subsequent selection processes.
- The SECR maintained that recruitment policy was an executive decision, and the courts should not question its efficacy.
Submissions
| Appellants’ Submissions | Respondents’ Submissions |
|---|---|
| SECR should have filled vacancies from the 20% extra panel. | 20% extra candidates were called only to avoid shortfalls. |
| SECR’s decision was arbitrary. | Calling for document verification does not guarantee appointment. |
| Relied on R.S. Mittal to argue that the employer cannot ignore the select panel without a valid reason. | Replacement panel system was discontinued after 10 January 2014. |
| CPO had to ensure cancellation of original appointments before calling replacement candidates. | |
| Subsequent selection processes filled the vacancies. | |
| Validity of the panel had expired. | |
| Appellants had lower marks than cut-offs in later processes. | |
| Recruitment policy is an executive decision that courts should not question. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the SECR could have ignored the 20% extra panel despite the letter dated 02 July 2008, without giving any cogent reason for the same.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the SECR could have ignored the 20% extra panel despite the letter dated 02 July 2008, without giving any cogent reason for the same. | The majority held that the SECR should have provided a valid reason for not appointing the candidates from the replacement panel, especially when vacancies existed. The minority held that the SECR had the discretion not to fill the vacancies. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India (1995) Suppl.2 SCC 230 | Supreme Court of India | The majority relied on this case to emphasize that while a select panel member has no vested right to appointment, the appointing authority cannot ignore the panel arbitrarily. |
| State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 | Supreme Court of India | The minority cited this case to support the view that the State has a right not to appoint a candidate even if their name appears in the merit list. |
| Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 | Supreme Court of India | The minority cited this case to support the view that selection for recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed. |
| Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 | Supreme Court of India | The minority cited this case to support the view that candidates do not acquire a right to the post merely upon selection. |
| S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 | Supreme Court of India | The minority cited this case to support the view that the State has a right to fill or not to fill posts and a candidate has no right to claim appointment unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness. |
| Kulwinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532 | Supreme Court of India | The minority cited this case to support the view that a candidate does not have an indefeasible right to seek an appointment merely because their name appears in the merit list. |
| Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779 | Supreme Court of India | The minority cited this case to explain the judgment in R.S. Mittal and to emphasize that mere inclusion in a selection list does not give a right to appointment. |
| Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Surender Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11149 of 2018 | Supreme Court of India | The minority cited this case to emphasize that a wait-list can be operated only for a specific period. |
Legal Provisions:
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The State must act in a non-arbitrary manner.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | SECR should have filled vacancies from the 20% extra panel. | The majority agreed that the SECR should have provided a valid reason for not filling the vacancies. The minority disagreed. |
| Appellants | SECR’s decision was arbitrary. | The majority agreed that the SECR’s decision appeared arbitrary. The minority disagreed. |
| Appellants | Relied on R.S. Mittal to argue that the employer cannot ignore the select panel without a valid reason. | The majority agreed with this argument. The minority distinguished the case. |
| Respondents | 20% extra candidates were called only to avoid shortfalls. | The majority acknowledged this, but emphasized that the employer must still give a justifiable reason for not filling the posts. The minority agreed with this. |
| Respondents | Calling for document verification does not guarantee appointment. | The majority agreed with this, but noted that the State must act non-arbitrarily. The minority agreed with this. |
| Respondents | Replacement panel system was discontinued after 10 January 2014. | The majority did not find this a sufficient reason to deny appointment. The minority agreed with this. |
| Respondents | CPO had to ensure cancellation of original appointments before calling replacement candidates. | The majority held that the appellants should not suffer for the failure of the CPO to do his duty. The minority did not address this. |
| Respondents | Subsequent selection processes filled the vacancies. | The majority rejected this argument, stating that the rights of the appellants could not be taken away by later processes. The minority agreed with this. |
| Respondents | Validity of the panel had expired. | The majority rejected this argument, stating that the appellants should not suffer for delays in court proceedings. The minority agreed with this. |
| Respondents | Appellants had lower marks than cut-offs in later processes. | The majority rejected this argument, stating that it is like comparing apples to oranges. The minority agreed with this. |
| Respondents | Recruitment policy is an executive decision that courts should not question. | The majority stated that they were not questioning the policy but ensuring its implementation. The minority agreed with this. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India (1995) Suppl.2 SCC 230: The majority relied on this case to emphasize that while a select panel member has no vested right to appointment, the appointing authority cannot ignore the panel arbitrarily.
- State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220: The minority cited this case to support the view that the State has a right not to appoint a candidate even if their name appears in the merit list.
- Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122: The minority cited this case to support the view that selection for recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed.
- Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47: The minority cited this case to support the view that candidates do not acquire a right to the post merely upon selection.
- S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479: The minority cited this case to support the view that the State has a right to fill or not to fill posts and a candidate has no right to claim appointment unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness.
- Kulwinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532: The minority cited this case to support the view that a candidate does not have an indefeasible right to seek an appointment merely because their name appears in the merit list.
- Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779: The minority cited this case to explain the judgment in R.S. Mittal and to emphasize that mere inclusion in a selection list does not give a right to appointment.
- Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Surender Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11149 of 2018: The minority cited this case to emphasize that a wait-list can be operated only for a specific period.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The majority opinion emphasized the importance of non-arbitrariness in state action, especially in matters of public employment. The court noted that the SECR failed to provide a valid reason for not filling the vacancies from the replacement panel, and that the appellants should not suffer due to the inaction of the SECR officials. The court also emphasized that the appellants had a reasonable expectation of appointment after going through the selection process.
The dissenting opinion focused on the legal principle that a candidate on a select panel has no vested right to appointment. It also highlighted the fact that the extra candidates were called to fill vacancies if the selected candidates did not join, and that the SECR had the discretion not to fill the vacancies if they were not needed.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Non-arbitrariness in State Action | 40% |
| Failure to provide a valid reason | 30% |
| Reasonable expectation of the candidates | 20% |
| No vested right to appointment | 10% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether SECR could ignore the 20% extra panel?
Majority: SECR should have given a valid reason for not filling vacancies from the extra panel. Arbitrariness is anathema to the rule of law.
Minority: Candidates in extra panel have no vested right to appointment. SECR has discretion not to fill vacancies.
Majority: Favored the appellants, directing SECR to offer appointments.
Minority: Dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the Tribunal and High Court.
The majority opinion held that the SECR should have provided a valid reason for not appointing the candidates from the replacement panel, especially when vacancies existed. The court emphasized that the State must act non-arbitrarily and that the appellants had a reasonable expectation of appointment. The dissenting opinion, on the other hand, held that the SECR had the discretion not to fill the vacancies, and that the appellants did not have a vested right to appointment.
The court rejected the SECR’s arguments that the replacement panel system was discontinued, that the CPO did not follow the procedure for cancellation of original appointments, that subsequent selection processes filled the vacancies, that the validity of the panel had expired, and that the appellants had lower marks than the cut-offs in later processes.
The majority opinion stated:
“No doubt, it is true, that mere selection does not give any vested right to the selected candidate to be appointed. At the same time when a large number of posts are lying vacant and selection process has been followed then the employer must satisfy the court as to why it did not resort to and appoint the selected candidates, even if they are from the replacement panel.”
The majority opinion further stated:
“When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts.”
The dissenting opinion stated:
“The appellants do not possess indefeasible right of appointment. It is not the case, that any candidate lower in merit has been appointed or the appointments have been made by pick and choose method ignoring merit.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has emphasized that while a candidate on a select panel does not have a vested right to appointment, the employer (especially the State) cannot act arbitrarily and must provide a justifiable reason for not filling the vacancies.
- The court has reiterated that the State is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution and must act in a non-arbitrary manner.
- The judgment highlights that candidates who have gone through the selection process have a reasonable expectation of appointment, and the State must provide a plausible reason for not filling the posts.
- This judgment may impact future cases where employers do not fill vacancies from replacement panels, especially in public employment.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The benefit of the judgment shall only be available to those appellants who had approached the CAT.
- The appellants shall not be entitled to any back wages.
- The appellants shall, for the purpose of seniority and fixation of pay, be placed immediately above the first selected candidates of the selection process which commenced in the year 2012, and immediately below the candidates of the selection list of 2010 in order of seniority.
- The appellants shall be entitled to notional benefits from the date of such deemed appointment only for the purposes of fixation of pay and seniority.
- The Respondent No. 1 (SECR) was directed to comply with the judgment and offer appointment to the eligible appellants within a period of 3 months from the date of the judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that while candidates in a select panel do not have a vested right to appointment, the State cannot act arbitrarily and must provide a valid reason for not filling vacancies, especially when a selection process has been followed. This judgment reinforces the principle of non-arbitrariness in state action and the reasonable expectation of candidates in public employment. There is no change in previous positions of law, but an emphasis on the State’s duty to act reasonably.
Conclusion
In a split decision, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the South East Central Railway should have provided a valid reason for not filling the vacancies from the 20% extra panel. The majority emphasized the importance of non-arbitrariness in state action and the reasonable expectation of candidates who have gone through the selection process. The dissenting opinion focused on the legal principle that candidates on a select panel do not have a vested right to appointment and that the employer has the discretion not to fill vacancies if they are not needed. The court directed the SECR to offer appointments to the eligible appellants within 3 months.